Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response
Pushback against the dishonest AP attack piece seems to be gaining traction. I can’t tell you how important articles like this are, and how it can shape the storyline that other journalists will follow in their reporting. (And yes, I know it’s sad that journalists are more likely to follow storylines and themes than actual facts… but that’s what we’re stuck with.)
The article points out the dishonest way the AP promoted the story.
Three days later, the Associated Press is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.
"The AP's social-media take on the story was seriously flawed," David Boardman, the Dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University and former editor of the Seattle Times, told CNNMoney. "It's sloppy, click-grabbing shorthand that is a disservice to the reporting to which it refers."
And the absurdity of how the AP reached it’s “85 out of 154 people” number.
This "extraordinary" finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report.
Moreover, the AP only analyzed 154 meetings, based on what has been made available by the State Department, and thus its review only accounts for a fraction of Clinton's meeting schedule during her tenure as secretary of state.
But, while mentioning “The AP’s big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess” article by Matt Yglesias, the CNN article doesn’t go into detail on why the attack on Clinton is false. There was nothing inappropriate about the meetings!
I’ll say that again. There was nothing inappropriate about the meetings.
That fact is entirely absent from the CNN article. The article actually ends with a disturbing call to double-down on innuendo and 'questions raised’ reporting.
"The AP reporters made clear they found no smoking-gun quid pro quo. And Clinton defenders' claim that 'there is no story' is absurd; of course it is worth investigating and explaining the relationship between Secretary Clinton and the Foundation, and how that relationship worked while she was at State," he said.
"If anything," Boardman continued, "the AP story could have used far more exploration of the inherent ethical issues here, and of the notion that whether or not Clinton gave extraordinary help to Foundation donors, the potential for accusations of that was probably reason enough to avoid such meetings altogether."
NO. Just. NO. We do not need more “this raises questions” reporting. Either prove a case or report that there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
Clearly there’s more work to be done and pressure to be applied. Please refer to this diary by Catskill Julie for the contact info of the major media players.